LifeSiteNews.com has picked up a story from Texas Homeschool Coalition which is said to be the “most significant parental rights case” in Texas history. The Texas Supreme Court is set this week to hear oral arguments in a parental rights case “that could shape up to be truly groundbreaking.”
The case centers around a father who is battling in the courts against a non-relative for custody of his four-year-old daughter. The non-relative was the boyfriend of the daughter’s now deceased mother. Most remarkable, all parties in the case openly acknowledge that the father is an entirely fit parent. Nevertheless, the boyfriend of the deceased mother argues he should be allowed custody rights as well.
The child’s mother died in a tragic car accident in 2018. At the time, she and the child’s father were already divorced and sharing a 50/50 custody of the girl. During the last 11 months of her life, the mother was “living with” her boyfriend. Courts have amazingly ordered “partial custody” to this live-in boyfriend. “In fact,” according to LifeSiteNews, “the judge agreed with the boyfriend’s argument that he should be allowed to come before the court on an equal footing with the actual father. The judge concurred that there should be no presumption in favor of the father’s having sole custody of his own daughter.”
“What makes this case so disturbing is that a non-parent was not simply given custody of another man’s daughter — he was given custody on the grounds that the biological father had no greater right to custody of his own daughter than did a virtual stranger.”
LifeSiteNews properly laments that horrible damage could be done to the constitutional rights of parents to raise their own children, if this case goes in the direction of awarding joint custody to a live-in boyfriend.
But I am going to add another shocking result that is already occurring and perhaps will be set in stone. It is this. The basic God-given unit of society—the FAMILY, consisting of Mom, Dad, and the Kids—is by implication considered by law as nothing worth protecting.
Christians have already witnessed “no fault divorce” in the 1970’s—encouraging the rise in divorce rates; the Obama Reorientation of what constitutes a family with the legalization of homosexual “marriage”; and now, as a matter of course, not only will biological parents have no presumption of legal custody over children which will later lead to the “state ownership of offspring”—but marriage itself will be relegated to absolute nothingness but a burden to be thrown off by a hedonistic society.
Should a “live-in boyfriend” have as much custody as a biological father? If so, this means that we are equating co-habitation with marriage in the eyes of the law. So much for the family. Pray that the Texas Supreme Court will do the right thing—even at this late hour.
We have been railing against Public/Private Partnerships for many years. This is not a new issue. Many times in the past we’ve tried to inform the public of the dangers of PPPs, but they are complicated and most people today don’t want to take the time to delve deeply into anything that isn’t giving them pleasure. But now is the time to become educated on just one of the ways that we are being bled dry, that our money is being sucked off with huge vacuums and given to those conspiring to destroy America and the great American dream. They are winning because we are too busy, too lazy, too involved in other pursuits to stop them.
In a speech at the Freedom 21 National Conference in Dallas in 2007, Tom DeWeese, president of American Policy Center, noted:
During the first years of the Clinton Administration in the early 1990s, there was much fanfare about a new policy to “reinvent government.” It was sold as a way to make government more efficient and less costly. It would, said its proponents, “bring business technologies to public service.”
Pro-business, anti-big-government conservatives and libertarians were intrigued. The backbone of the plan was a call for “public/private partnerships.” Now that sounded like their kind of program.
Government, they said, would finally tap the tremendous power of the entrepreneurial process and the force of the free market into making government more effective and efficient. It sounded so revolutionary and so American.
Being open-minded and wanting to help us get back to what the framers of the Constitution had built for us, we wanted this to be true. But as Tom pointed out:
Today that “reinvention” has revealed itself to be the policy known as Sustainable Development, which is nothing more than a plan for a top-down managed society. Sustainable Development policy includes population control; development control; technology control; resource control; and in a great sense, thought control.
Sustainable Development is not freedom. Not one of the three principles apply. There is no individuality as it advocates group policies; there is no private property under Sustainable Development – period. And there is no free enterprise as markets and supplies are tightly controlled by the hand of government.
Yet, incredibly, much of the Sustainable policy has been embraced by the “free-trade” movement, which advocates open borders, free trade zones, and one-size fits all regulations, currencies, and the use of public/private partnerships. And many of the biggest proponents of the policy are conservative and libertarian think tanks.
But again, Tom nails it: Public/Private Partnerships = Government- Sanctioned Monopolies
It is little understood by the general public how public/private partnerships can be used, not as a way to diminish the size of government, but in fact, to increase government’s power.
That’s because no one ever comes forward and tells the general public the entire plan for something as vast as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. No one ever calls for a debate or a vote to implement the plan with public approval.
Instead, it’s done incrementally, a piece at a time, in an easy to disguise program here – a suggestion there. There are few debates or discussions. Even elected officials rarely know the true agenda they are helping to put in place.
Slowly, the whole comes together. By the time people realize the truth, it’s already in place. Policy is set.(Note Randy Salzman’s article below.)
And Public/Private Partnerships are becoming the fastest growing process to impose such policy. State legislatures across the nation are passing legislation, which calls for the implementation of PPPs.
Beware. These bonds between government and private international corporations are a double-edged sword. They come armed with government’s power to tax, the government’s power to enforce policy and the government’s power to enforce eminent domain.
At the same time, the private corporations use their wealth and extensive advertising budgets to entrench the policy into our national conscience. Cute little jingles or emotional commercials can be very useful tools to sell a government program.
It is one thing to spell this out. At least it gives you a foundation for what Public/Private Partnerships are. But until you are exposed to an actual project (or rather the ‘conceived’ project), you cannot fathom the intricacies of deceit, collusion, and theft of taxpayer money with which these entities are swindling us, the people.
In a must-read article from Thinking Highways, Randy Salzman’s “A ‘Model’ Scheme? is enlightening and frightening. As the lead-in says, “Salzman’s work is most comprehensive look at the dangers of P3s to date. It’s a must read for citizens and policymakers alike.” Please take the time to read it. I offer some key points from his article:
In the media, congress and across the political world, promoters pushing design-build public-private partnerships (P3s) are still claiming that private innovation is saving taxpayer money, creating good jobs and easing congestion.
In wanting to institute an “Infrastructure Bank” to address America’s “crumbling highway infrastructure,” even President Obama, using New York’s Tappan Zee Bridge as a backdrop, recently encouraged P3 construction with a US$302 billion plan. The president had apparently not read Congressional Budget Office research into P3s, nor heard the Tappan Zee contractor speak at a congressional hearing.
In March, Fluor’s senior vice president Richard Fierce bragged that his company was saving taxpayers US$1.7 billion on the new bridge across the Hudson until one congressman offhandedly remarked that he’d heard the Tappan Zee project would cost US$5 billion, not US$3.1 billion as the contractor had claimed.
Salzman points out that the ‘private’ entities “put up tiny bits of equity, though they impy more becaue they borrow dollars from Uncle Sam that they likey will not repay”; that the state and federal taxpayers are ponying up the 95+% of the bill, and we are also stuck with the cost of the bonds when “the P3 goes bankrupt – as they almost inevitably do – about 15 years down the road.”
Media coverage of P3s over the past decade, furthermore, has been overwhelmingly positive, consistently following the contractor line that private innovation is offsetting significant amounts of expense, improving projects and freeing public dollars for other activities. However, the Congressional Budget Office indicates P3s provide little, if any, financial benefit to taxpayers.
“The cost of financing a highway project privately is roughly equal to the cost of financing it publicly after factoring in the costs associated with the risk of losses from the project, which taxpayers ultimately bear, and the financial transfers made by the federal government to states and localities,” the CBO’s Microeconomic Studies director told congress in March. “Any remaining difference between the costs of public versus private financing for a project will stem from the effects of incentives and conditions established in the contracts that govern public-private partnerships.”
In that congressional hearing, Boston’s Michael Capuano reminded congressmen that “people stole money” in prior equivalents of design-build P3s, and that’s why the highway construction paradigm became “inefficiency intended to avoid malfeasance.”
Read the article – it is eye-opening even for those who understand the concept of PPPs. We the taxpayers are having our wealth redistributed in so many ways, but this is one of the most egregious.
Back to Tom’s speech on Public/Private Partnerships and our Republic:
Further, participating corporations can control the types of products offered on the market. Witness the drive for solar and wind power, even though the technology doesn’t exist for these alternative energies to actually make a difference.
Yet, the corporations, in partnership with government to impose these polices, have convinced the American public that this is the future of energy. Rest assured that if any one of these companies had to sell such products on the free market controlled by consumers, there would be very little talk about them.
But, today, an unworkable idea is making big bucks, not on the open market, but in a controlled economy for a select few like British Petroleum because of their partnerships with government.
Public/private partnerships can be used by international corporations to get a leg up on their competition by entering into contracts with government to obtain favors such as tax breaks and store locations not available to their competition, thereby creating an elite class of “connected” businesses.
A private developer, which has entered into a Public/Private Partnership with local government, for example, can now obtain the power of eminent domain to build on land not open to its competitors.
The fact is, current use of eminent domain by local communities in partnership with private developers simply considers all property to be the common domain of the State, to be used as it sees fit for some undefined common good.
The government gains the higher taxes created by the new development. The developer gets the revenue from the work. The immediate losers, of course, are the property owners. But other citizens are losers too. Communities lose control of their infrastructure. Voters lose control of their government.
Using PPPs, power companies can obtain rights of way over private land, as is currently happening in Virginia where Dominion Power plans massive power towers over private property – against the strong objections of the property owners.
Private companies are now systematically buying up water treatment plants in communities across the nation, in effect, gaining control of the water supply. And they are buying control of the nation’s highway systems through PPPs with state departments of transportation.
Because of a public/private partnership, one million Texans are about to lose their land for the Trans Texas Corridor, a highway that couldn’t be built without the power of eminent domain.
Of course, it’s not just American companies entering into PPPs with our government. Foreign companies are being met with open arms by local, state and federal officials who see a way to use private corporations and their massive bank accounts to fund projects.
As the Associated Press reported July 15, 2006, “On a single day in June (2006) an Australian-Spanish partnership paid $3.6 billion to lease the Indiana Toll Road. An Australian company bought a 99 year lease on Virginia’s Pocahontas Parkway, and Texas officials decided to let a Spanish-American partnership build and run a toll road for 50 years.”
In fact, that Spanish-American partnership in Texas and its lease with the Texas Department of Transportation to build and run the Trans Texas Corridor contains a “no-compete” clause which prohibits anyone, including the Texas government from building new highways or expanding exiting ones which might run in competition with the TCC. (note: the TCC is dead, but just recently I’ve heard it is going to be put forward again.)
So why do so many libertarians and conservatives support the concept of Public/Private Partnerships? By their words they profess to uphold the principles of freedom, limited government, individualism, private property and free enterprise. Yet they embrace a policy that eliminates competition, increases the size and power of government and stamps out the individual in the process.
A recent conference held in Virginia, just outside D.C. by such libertarians was titled “Restoring the Republic.” Yet, they called for open borders and “free trade.”
My question is this: What is the Republic? Is it just a notion floating on air? Something we can’t actually hold in our hand. Is the Republic just an idea? Or is it a thing? A place?
Only one nation was created by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution: the United States. We were created as that Republic.” The Constitution defines a government that is supposed to have one purpose, the protection of rights we were born with.
It is true that every person on earth was born with those rights based on the principles of freedom. But only one nation was specifically designed to recognize and protect them: the United States.
If there are no borders, then what is the Republic they want to preserve? How can that be done? The Republic is the land of the United States. The laws of the United States. The judicial system of the United States. The sovereign states of the United States.
Our Constitution directs how we create laws by which we live, right down to the local level. It protects our ability to create a way of life we desire. Our resources, our economy, our wealth is all determined by the way of life we have chosen. And it’s all protected by the borders which define the nation – the Republic. And you can’t “harmonize” that with nations that reject those concepts! Canada is a commonwealth tied to the British Crown; Mexico is socialist.
So again, I ask, if you eliminate all of that by opening the borders and inviting nothing short of anarchy – then how do you preserve the Republic?
Bart Lubow has been a left-wing radical for many years. Once a member of Students for Democratic Society (SDS), a front-group for communism which terrorist Bill Ayers helped to found, Lubow was even at one time deported from the Philippines for attempting to distribute communist anti-government literature. However, like the ascendency of other Marxist-oriented agitators during the current White House Administration, Lubow, having directed the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI) for the Annie E. Casey foundation since 1994, is becoming influential in states such as Texas. The JDAI program is to “require states to work to reduce the disproportionate representation of minority juveniles in secured facilities.” Plainly, the goal of the JDAI is the revamp the detention and incarceration procedures in the United States along “social justice” lines.
Social Justice has little to do with actual “justice” but focuses attention upon “outcomes.” Decrying disparities in society, social justice advocates cry continually about unequal distribution of properties, of monies, of college degrees, and even jail sentences in America. As Walter Williams puts it, “Outcomes of human relationships are often seen as criteria for the presence or absence of justice or fairness. Outcomes frequently used as barometers of justice and fairness are: race and sex statistics on income and unemployment, income distribution in general, occupational distribution, wealth ownership, and other measures of socio-economic status.” In other words, no attention at all is paid to any underlying reason for differences, it is simply assumed that different outcomes among people is the result of crass prejudices or favoritism.
If, for example, wealth distribution is uneven among various races of people, “social justice” demands the assumption that foul play must be involved. So also, if as is the case, a greater percentage of a minority population is incarcerated than is the case with white America, the automatic conclusion among socialists is that injustices have been committed by “white society” against people of color. Differences among people or subcultures as a possible cause is never considered as that would be the “politically incorrect” thing to do. The underlying assumption by Lubow is that the American system of justice is “profoundly racist” given the statistics. And for socialists on the rise, that is all that is required—show disparity in statistics. No examination of personal choices, no study of various cultural differences between races, no time wasted pondering divergent habits or pressures among minority populations—simply announce that America continues to be a “racist” state.
For obvious reasons Lubow does not seek to show that disparities between races in other areas are also caused by “white racism.” For example, the out-of-wedlock birth rates for different racial and ethnic groups in 2008 was just over 40%. The breakdown of that statistic shows that among white non-Hispanic women, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 28.6 percent while among Hispanics it was 52.5 percent and among blacks the figure jumps to a startling 72.3 percent. Consider abortion. In 2005 the abortion rate for blacks in the United States is almost 5 times that for white women. Similar “disparities” are found in almost every measurable statistic. It is clearly evident that minority cultures are fostering immoral lifestyles to an alarming degree. Yet, when it comes to discrepancies among incarceration rates, Lubow wishes us to believe that sub-culture has nothing to do with it, but that it is the result of “white racist attitudes.” That is what a good communist would do. Drive that “racist” wedge.
Lubow on “Structural Racism”
In a 2007 speech before the Chicago Council on Urban Affairs, Lubow laments the “grossly disproportionate representation of people of color” in the criminal or juvenile justice system. That 30% of African American males born “into this society will spend part of their lives in prison” should be reason enough to infuriate Americans, says he. “More than two-thirds of youth confined in secure detention nationally are youth of color” is demonstration to Lubow that our nation “mocks our claims to freedom and justice for all and, therefore, undermine[s] the very fabric upon which this society is supposedly founded.” “White people,” Lubow pontificates, “have been and still are the purveyors of racial injustice.” The blanket indictment against white society is that “white people accrue and rely upon” privileges “by virtue of skin color.”
To remedy racist America, JDAI has begun to implement core strategies “through racial equity lens.” In other words, force diverse population representation in incarceration facilities. Further, like the communist strategy of manipulating American citizens to their own demise, Lubow preaches that it is “white responsibility” to take on the issue with great fervor to change the system. We must create a “level playing field.”
So, for the citizen who thought that racial hiring quota’s were an assault on real fairness and individual responsibility, not to mention a vast overreach of federal government, much more seems in store regarding incarceration rates, if Lubow and the Annie E. Casey foundation have their way. And if Americans thought that the financial market fiasco, caused in part by federal officials leaning on lending institutions to provide loans to low-income persons who would not otherwise qualify, was a total disaster to the Housing Market, wait until our streets become more populated with criminal elements because of “racial quotas” that govern incarceration. Chaos in the streets is what socialists have always wanted. Old SDS members have not changed their stripes.
Under the guise of promoting “sexual health” and adapting to modernity, education authorities and front groups for Big Abortion in Texas are plotting to sexualize children as young kindergarten. The consequences could be devastating.
Leading the charge to corrupt young Texans is Texas Education Board Commissioner Mike Morath, who is working to overhaul the state’s already radical sex-ed standards. Among other topics, Morath is hoping to present information on “sexual risk reduction methods,” “healthy relationships,” and “anatomy” to children as young as 4 and 5.
“By the end of middle school, adolescents should understand sexual risk avoidance as the primary goal and learn sexual risk reduction methods that may be needed later in their lives,” Morath wrote in recommendations on how to update Texas sex-ed programs. He added that government schools can and should “play an important role” in teaching children about sex.
Also working to indoctrinate young children in Texas is the fringe leftwing group “Texas Freedom Network.” Among other topics, the group wants more LGBT propaganda added in. It also complains that because more than half of Texas children supposedly become sexually active before leaving high-school, that all children must learn perversion at school.
The outfit, which works to demonize and marginalize Christians and other people with traditional values, is at the forefront of attacking Texas’ current sex-ed programs. Establishment media outlets have given the fringe group endless free media coverage, without ever mentioning that it was founded by recently departed Planned Parenthood boss and pro-abortion fanatic Cecile Richards.
There are reportedly several sensible experts on the advisory panel considering changes to the sex-ed program. However, they are under relentless pressure from advocates of sexualizing and grooming children at the earliest possible ages.
Especially infuriating to sex-ed peddlers are the experts who oppose killing unborn babies and who believe what the Bible says about sex: that it should be reserved for marriage. The evidence also shows that the biblical view of marriage is best from a health and mental health perspective.
The final vote on updating Texas’s sex-ed standards is expected in September of 2020.
From sexually transmitted diseases and mental scars to learning problems and future marital issues, encouraging children to fornicate and engage in perversion and debauchery has horrifying consequences that will result in life-long damage. It is time for Americans and Texans to “just say no” to the sexualization of children.
Communists of Antifa riot in Portland and call for more revolts across the country. Republican members of Congress are receiving “death threats.” Soros-funded mobsters disrupt the Kavanaugh hearings. James T. Hodgkinson, animated by Democrat anger, shot Rep. Steve Scalise. Floyd Lee Corkins II, motivated by leftist rhetoric of the socialist-oriented Southern Poverty Law Center, shoots a security guard at Family Research Council headquarters.
Instead of denouncing these lawless rampages, Democrats continue to stoke the smoldering fires. Maxine Waters yells to crowds to “get in the faces” of Republicans and scream “You are not welcome here, or anywhere!” Now actor Alec Baldwin publicly advocates the “overthrow” of the Trump Administration. “We need to overthrow the government of the United States under Donald Trump,” Baldwin said.
Baldwin will slyly complain: “I said ‘not violently’”—but he knows the leftist insurrectionists and anarchists are already plunging into violence and the “overthrow” language is clearly added incitement.
What I want to know is: what are you waiting for, Alec? Lead your revolutionaries. Stop agitating impressionable college kids and angry nobodies and do it yourself. I am sure you will be joined by Hanoi Jane Fonda who recently screeched “We have to get in the streets—Nobody should work. We should shut down the country. Shut it down!” Gather your leftist comrades in Hollywood, Alec; shoulder your weapon; get at the head of the Fifth Column and head to Washington, D.C.
Be sure to march through Texas as you go.
The problem with these blow-hard actors and actresses is that they are childish weaklings who sit within posh security-enforced mansions and want other people—the ignorant minions of thebrainwashed masses—to do their dirty work for them. Baldwin is all bark, no bite. He is a wind-bag of vitriolic treasonous speeches. Jane Fonda is no better.
Do I personally desire a revolution? No, I do not. But I grow weary of communist-inspired leftists who continue, ever since the Obama Administration emboldened them, to threaten to remove our God-given right of self-government. It is disgusting that they wish to destroy our constitutional system that has given us a peaceful country.
I know that the Alec Baldwin’s and Jane Fonda’s of the world love dictatorships—and Obama would have loved to have been yours, Alec. But it is getting to the point of absurdity for these pinkies to continue to threaten us with revolution.
Vogue Writer Maya Singer
Gabriel Hays of MRC Newsbusters exposes another socialist who tries to stoke a revolution from her armchair. Maya Singer wrote an opinion piece in Vogue Magazine entitled Who’s Up for Burning It All Down? With the acidic ink of an anarchist she begins, “I am going to try to write this calmly. I want to remain calm because I want to remain lucid. Also, if my hands are shaking with rage I cannot type.”
Maybe Alec Baldwin will hold your hand, Maya. Perhaps you both can begin your march to the nation’s capital. “If you’d asked me,” she wrote, “before last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings… where we were on the road to revolution, I’d have said we were somewhere around ‘the people are very mad but they’re working within the system.’”
But now that Kavanaugh has been confirmed on the Supreme Court, Maya Singer says the dynamic has changed. Women might begin the firebombing, she wrote. “I really wouldn’t be surprised if millions of American women spend the weekend Googling, ‘how to make Molotov cocktails.”
“They’ll have no one to blame but themselves if we riot,” she added. So, Baldwin has another volunteer to join his riotous army—unless she, too, chooses to stay seated behind her computer. The communists about which generations before us have warned are upon us. They are the very Hollywood celebrities, columnists of slick-covered magazines, opinion-writers of a fawning press, and self-confessed communist professors who lecture from taxpayer-paid podiums.
The trouble with all of these public figures is that they are so deluded with their own inflated sense of importance and power and so devoid of character that they care not about the rights of the common people who are paying the taxes. That the common man will lose his liberties under God—which is what big government always does—is nothing to them. After all, they are the wealthy elite who despise “we the people.” But this is why we have selected Donald J. Trump to roll back Big Government.
Hillary Clinton is trying to get ahead of the frenzied riotous forces that she helped unleash, voicing that “civil discourse” cannot be—as long as the left is out of power. Being interviewed by CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Clinton stated: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.”
Clinton added, “That’s what I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or Senate, that’s when civility starts again. But until then, the only thing Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”
As Rick Moran comments in PJMedia.com, “The most prominent Democrat in the country has, for all intents and purposes, just given a green light to every left-wing kook and violent sociopath to be uncivil to Republicans.”
Besides the fact that the eruptive and unrestrained mobs ransacked the nation’s capital as the Kavanaugh hearings were underway; and prominent conservatives such as Senator Ted Cruz have been chased out of restaurants by tumultuous crowds; and paid screamers recently burst on the Capitol; and one Congressman, Steve Scalise has already been shot in an attempted assassination that was specifically fueled by leftist rhetoric—Hillary Clinton waves for more ungovernable mob action. Why? This is the Left’s DNA.
Observations from a Cattleman
J. Evetts Haley (1901-1995) was a famed Texas historian, rancher and conservative politician who is best known for his biography on Texas cattleman Charles Goodnight of the Palo Duro country. He taught at UT from 1929 to 1936. But these were the days of the rising tide of “progressivism”, specifically FDR’s New Deal, which Haley rightly saw as socialism. His voiced opposition brought about his dismissal. “I was fired because of my vigorous fight against the invasion of socialistic federal power.”
It is this socialistic federal power which is the topic of his 1964 book, A Texan Looks at Lyndon: A Study in Illegitimate Power. His assessments and incisive logic regarding the growth of unconstitutional government cannot be matched. Represented by the Clinton’s nasty power-machine, Haley’s warnings are coming to pass.
Haley exposes two factors that encourage Illegitimate Government in the following. One of them is deceit of the politicians; the other is a compliant and partisan press. As if writing about the Obama-era corrupted Administration, including the FBI and DOJ, Haley says,
When deceit and duplicity become accepted government policy, no sage is wise enough to anticipate the ultimate and possibly violent end. Inherently this means the abrogation of the God-given right of free speech, the perversion and hence destruction of the freedom of the press, and the denial of that indispensable ingredient of all legitimate governments, the consent of the governed.
Although speaking of the Dwight Eisenhower through Lyndon Johnson periods, Haley’s observations regarding the media are classic.
After steady if not studied attrition of these rights and principles through many years, through preferential treatment of some, and coercion and blackmail of others, vast portions of the news media in America have been reduced to sycophantic if not criminal confederates of the Establishment or the man in power. This was no less obvious in the successful buildup of a politically inexperienced army man by politicians and press to the stature of a hero worthy to be President, than in the instant, repulsive reversal of position toward Lyndon B. Johnson when adverse fate elevated him to the presidency.
Continuing in this vein regarding the complicit media complex in America, Haley writes,
One wonders if these prostitutes of the media are simply so deluded by their own inflated sense of important position and power as really to believe what they say, or whether they are so devoid of character as to slant and distort the truth for personal expediency, or whether they, like the late utterly cynical Harry Hopkins, simply believe the people are just “too ____ dumb to understand.”
With disunity in America at an all-time high, and unbridled “incivility” encouraged, violence that has already been erupting amongst the Lefties may continue to explode. Haley points out that this will only beget more violence from the right.
The existence of such a phenomenon in such an area of vital interest and concern, with its eventual effects upon the morals of the people and the national character and unity, is staggering in its potential effect. Its surface influence is reflected in the idiom of the street, in the repeated and pervasive comment that ‘you can’t believe a thing you read in the papers!’ Nor can this sweeping indictment of a once vaunted ‘free and independent’ press be swept aside as popular caprice or a momentary passion.
It is something of far deeper and more somber significance. It is a combination of the long frustrations of the little but honest people who want and seek truth, of resentment of propaganda and designed deception by those in power, of a sense of betrayal in past deed and action by those of influence and authority! More than that it is cumulative in force and effect. It is impervious to pious platitudes in political forum, press or pulpit. It is a sign of national disunity, the dangerous undertones of largely forgotten and inarticulate masses stirring with potential violence—one of the most historic, most natural and yet most terrifying reactions of people who have been denied the truth by illegitimate power. (Emp. added)
As new ugly revelations continue to explode across the political landscape indicating the abject corruption of the Obama presidency, whose administration was also illegally assisting via the FBI the much-anticipated Hillary Clinton presidency, we might suppose that J. Evetts Haley was a prophet. But deceit and corruption are simply a part of the Left’s DNA.
When men are once convinced that they are consistently being denied the truth essential to their survival, imagination alone is left with which to anticipate tomorrow, upon which to predicate their future. Even at its most adverse, an honest and healthy people with national unity solidly based on spiritual faith and morality can face and live with reality. With venality on the prowl, and corruption widely condoned if not an actual part of government policy, public apprehension feeds on imaginative fears, and the specter of the gods of wrath and violence hang over such unfortunate and uneasy lands.
Haley, the “Salty Texas Rebel” from the Staked Plains, is right on the mark. We, the honest little people, perhaps not understanding the depths of the Left’s depravity, or the twisted conniving of the Obama Administration, at least have enough common sense to smell a rat. This is why we threw out the politicians and hired Donald J. Trump—To Make America Great Again.
Soros-Funded “Beto” O’Rourke Wrong for Texas; Wrong for America–“Beto O’Rourke’s cumulative score on the “Freedom Index” of The New American is a pitiful 27%.
It ought to be a fair warning to Texans that Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is heavily financed by communist agitator George Soros. But a glance at his ultra-liberal voting record while serving in the U.S. House of Representatives from El Paso seals the deal against him with those who have any respect left for what remains of the United States Constitution, and who value freedom from a Leviathan-Government.
Beto O’Rourke’s cumulative score on the “Freedom Index” of The New American is a pitiful 27%. There is not a big government program that O’Rourke does not like, nor a diminishing of liberty for citizens that he does not favor.
He voted against the bill (December, 2017) known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that would cut corporate income tax rates from 35 percent to 21 percent, cut individual tax-rates through 2025, and eliminate the tax penalty on Americans who do not purchase health insurance. This last was the cornerstone of the ObamaCare 2010 legislation.
On his website O’Rourke stumps for socialized medicine, using all the left’s fabricated lies to push voters in that direction. “It means,” says Beto, “that every one of us is able to get healthy and stay healthy. It means we have access to the providers, medications and help that keep us on our feet and moving forward.” This is achieved perhaps “through a single payer system, a dual system, or otherwise…”
As Beto knows, the issue has never been about “access to providers” of healthcare coverage—even though this was the patented lie of Obama. The trouble is not access but who is paying for it?Our Emergency Rooms have been filled for over 30 years will illegals and others who have been funded by the taxpayers. Again, access is not the issue. What is at stake is a federal government program that robs one sector of society (the producers) to pay for others (the takers).
“Healthcare is a basic human right, not a privilege,” says his website. Wrong. Healthcare is a service provided by those who have invested much personal time and money into their profession. O’Rourke thinks that by calling it his “right” that these professionals serve him he has created the “right” that that somehow mandates that I must pay for his services. No wonder Soros loves him. Liberals always miss the basic issue as to what a “right” is.
Politifact says that it is “mostly true” that Beto O’Rourke wishes to disband ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) as accused by Ted Cruz. According to a Texas Tribune news story (July 2, 2018), at a town hall in San Antonio, O’Rourke was asked about “abolishing ICE.” Politifact writes,
O’Rourke discussed the need to eliminate fear in immigrant communities under Trump and to find a better way to enforce immigration laws. ‘And if that involves doing away with this agency, giving that responsibility to somebody else, changing how this agency performs, I’m open to doing that,’ O’Rourke said.
Yet he went on to flatly answer no when directly asked if he would abolish ICE, explaining that he does not currently know enough about how immigration law would be enforced without the agency.
‘I understand the urgency of this,’ O’Rourke said in conclusion. ‘I just want to make sure that we’re constructive in how we talk about meeting this challenge and that I understand what abolishing ICE would mean in terms of enforcing our laws going forward.’
Stop here a moment. Universal health care in Texas—socialized medicine paid for by taxpayers. No border enforcement, which means open borders. That is a simple recipe to say good-bye to the Lone Star State. Let’s just turn it over to Mexico, as is already being called for by some liberal groups. Perhaps Robert needs to be nicknamed “Reconquista” O’Rourke.
On Abortion, O’Rourke has proved consistent—consistently immoral. He has voted to fund the murder of the unborn with federal taxpayer-supplied funds; when a bill came before him to deny federal subsidies in ObamaCare from funding abortion, he voted NO; when the issue was to limit abortions, he was against that limitation; he refused to defund Planned Parenthood even for one year unless Congress could certify that that “healthcare provider” did not perform abortions. His website claims he wants a “chance for everyone to succeed”—unless, of course, you are a person awaiting birth from inside your mother’s womb.
Beto voted for raising the spending cap during Obama’s presidency; he is pro Common Core; and voted against the Death Tax Repeal which would have put to rest an ungodly law Robin Hood-style system of robbery. He is weak on the 2d Amendment as he promises to “close the gun show loophole.”
Another issue of keen interest to liberty-minded Texans is Beto’s support of the EPA’s “Waters of the United States” rule. As described by one writer, this bill (H.R. 2, May, 2018) was the “poster child of government overreach during the Obama administration” as it gives “unelected bureaucrats at the EPA the power to broadly interpret what is a navigable waterway” under the Clean Water Act. The practice of the EPA was to interpret the rule “so broadly” that “even a puddle in a farm’s drainage ditch could be subjected to Federal regulation.”
This is exactly the kind of kingship government that Beto prefers—an unconstitutional socialistic-style system that lawlessly regulates each patch of dirt in the great state of Texas. Beto is wrong for Texas; he is wrong for America.
Social Engineering, Crony Capitalism, Regionalism, Urbanism are all happening in every state – “…Let’s look at Texas…”
Let’s look at Texas; these issues are not limited to Texas, but Texas’s population growth is higher than the U.S. as a whole and twice as fast sine the 1990s, so perhaps we can see some things better there.
A DEEPER LOOK AT THE PHONY “TEXAS MIRACLE”
“Moving a business to Texas also turns out to have tax consequences that are inconsistent with the conservative narrative of the Texas Miracle.
Yes, some businesses manage to strike lucrative tax breaks in Texas. As part of an industrial policy that dares not speak its name, the state government, for example, maintains the Texas Enterprise Fund (known to some as a slush fund and to others as a “deal-closing” fund), which the governor uses to lure favored businesses with special subsidies and incentives.
“But most Texas businesses, especially small ones, don’t get such treatment. Instead, they face total effective tax rates that are, by bottom-line measures, greater than those in even the People’s Republic of California.” [Read more]
BREAKING NEWS! JANUARY 23, 2017
“The people of Texas have a vital interest in water. Yet, the Texas Water Development Board is, in essence, holding a secret meeting—what they call a “unique opportunity” available only to their invited presenters and those who pay $525 to attend–to set their course on water allocation issues.” [Read more]
AUSTIN’S ‘COMPLETE STREETS’ POLICY A COMPLETE CONGESTION NIGHTMARE
If Austin planners have their way, they’ll impose a California-style ‘complete streets’ congestion-inducing nightmare. Complete streets policies seek to elevate non-auto modes of travel by using already scarce road funds to construct bike, bus, and pedestrian facilities while reducing capacity and access for autos. Voters in San Francisco just passed Proposition A, a $500 million bond measure, last November to impose a variety of traffic calming measures, which actually do anything but calm traffic. Rather they induce traffic.
The measure includes speed bumps, road diets, traffic circles, intersection islands, train upgrades, expanding bus stops, special boarding islands or ‘bulbs’ for buses (which undoubtedly take up road space needed for efficient auto travel), and transit-only lanes. [Read more]
The water issue is not specific to Texas, but be assured wherever you live, you are in the same metaphorical boat.
The Trans-Texas Corridor, aka the NAFTA Highway, was an early piece of social engineering. In 2006, Ron Paul said, “Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside. … The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union.”
“By design, the corridor had few access ramps and bisected communities in order to shorten travel distances. No additional border security was planned at the Mexico-Texas border. Chinese-owned ports on the Mexican coast were to be offloaded in sealed containers, not to be opened until they reached their final destination. The first upgraded security check was to take place at the corridor hub in Kansas City, Kansas where a “Smart Port” was to be installed that would allow the cargo to be scanned while moving through the facility. Efficiency and expediency of goods was the stated mission of the NAFTA Superhighway.
“The corridor itself was to hold six passenger lanes for commuter travel, four truck lanes for long hauls, freight rail and high speed rail. The right-of-way that would be condemned for the project was a quarter-of-a-mile wide, taking 146 acres per mile from Americans. The right-of-way was to be wide enough to not only house the transportation facilities, but also the hotels, gas stations and restaurants so that travelers would not need to leave the corridor.
“The corridor was backed by international investors. They were to design and build the corridor and in return collect toll fees for the next 50 years. In return, American’s land would be confiscated, their community and emergency services bisected, all for the privilege of paying a toll to drive their children to school.
“In order to avoid national opposition to the facility, the corridor was not put forward as a project of the federal government; rather it was split into state segments, built by each state transportation department. The first critical leg of the corridor was the I-35 Trans-Texas Corridor which connected the Mexican border to Oklahoma.
In 2002, Governor Rick Perry unveiled the Trans-Texas Corridor concept as the new model for transportation in the state. In 2003, his hand-picked House Transportation Chairman Mike Krusee held every transportation bill in committee until the final hour when he then unveiled a massive Omnibus Transportation package. The bill was voted on and passed without the time to closely examine its contents. Included in this package was a 100-plus page Trans-Texas Corridor bill that gave Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) the green light to develop three separate TTC corridors in Texas.” [Read more]
The TransTexas Corridor was shot down in 2009, but it didn’t die. “In 2009, Perry scrapped the TTC plan after a series of combative town hall meetings throughout the state showed TxDOT it faced massive taxpayer resistance. “But now, the plan apparently is being implemented in small chunks, without the fanfare of divulging a statewide blueprint Perry and TxDOT may still have tucked away in their back pockets.” [Read more]
PUSH TO CONTINUE THE CROOKED RICK PERRY TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR QUIETLY
“Gridzilla, aka the California Water Model — is the ugly baby of State Rep. Lyle Larson (R-San Antonio) who is now the chair of the House Natural Resources Committee and Sen. Charles Perry (R-Lubbock), who chairs the Senate Agricultural, Water and Rural Affairs Committee. This picture of his “water grid” from the 2015 session tells you exactly where Lyle’s head is — the IH-35 growth corridor. That’s where he wants to send massive supplies of groundwater for hyper-development. Though some movement of groundwater is necessary, this is the California Water Model that took only 50 years to cause a water crisis of historic proportion.” [Read more]
The Independent League of Texas has a list of bills that need to be voted against. Texans can go to their website to find those. For Texans to find their legislators they can go here. For others, search state name, then legislature and there will be a link to a list where you can find your city, county, and state representatives.